Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:41:45.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Analysis of animal contest data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2013

Ian C. W. Hardy
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Mark Briffa
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth
Get access

Summary

Summary

In this chapter we outline and discuss statistical approaches to the analysis of contest data, with an emphasis on testing key predictions and assumptions of the theoretical models described in Chapters 2 and 3. We use examples from an array of animal taxa, including cnidarians, arthropods and chordates, to illustrate these approaches and also the commonality of many key aspects of contest interactions despite the differing life histories and morphologies (including weaponry) of these organisms. We first deal with the analysis of contest outcomes, a useful approach for determining which traits contribute to an individual's resource holding potential (RHP). Here we outline alternative statistical approaches that treat the outcome as either an explanatory (independent) variable or as the response (dependent) variable. In both cases, we treat a single contest as one ‘experimental unit’ and consider ways in which multiple measures taken from the same experimental unit should be accounted for in the analysis. Thus, we introduce paired and repeated measures approaches for contest data and also the calculation of composite measures. We then discuss more complex mixed models, which are particularly useful for dealing with multi-party contests when multiple individuals from the same group occur in more than one observation. Having established what factors influence RHP, one might then ask questions about the roles of information-gathering and decision-making during contests. These questions are prompted by the theoretical models of dyadic contests discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, and we consider the advantages and limitations of using analysis of contest duration to distinguish between ‘mutual-’ and ‘self-assessment’ type contests. An additional tool that we can use to address this question is the analysis of escalation and de-escalation patterns, and we thus shift the focus to within-contest behavioural changes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Animal Contests , pp. 47 - 85
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, ES (2005) Bayesian analysis of linear dominance hierarchies. Animal Behaviour, 69, 1191–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, PCH & Vries, H (2001) Elo-rating as a tool in the sequential estimation of dominance strengths. Animal Behaviour, 61, 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASAB/ABS (2012) Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behaviour, 83, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R & Gottman, JM (1986) Observing interaction: An Introduction to Sequence Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bamford, AJ, Monadjem, A & Hardy, ICW (2010) Associations of avian facial flushing and skin colouration with agonistic interaction outcomes. Ethology, 16, 1–8.Google Scholar
Bang, A , Deshpande, S, Sumana, A, et al. (2010) Choosing an appropriate index to construct dominance hierarchies in animal societies: A comparison of three indices. Animal Behaviour, 79, 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, TP & Briffa, M (2010) Influences on resource holding potential during dangerous group contests between wood ants. Animal Behaviour, 80, 443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, TP & Briffa, M (2011) Fight tactics in wood ants: Individuals in smaller groups fight harder but die faster. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 278, 3243–3250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayly, KL, Evans, CS & Taylor, A (2006) Measuring social structure: A comparison of eight dominance indices. Behavioural Processes, 73, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaugrand, JP & Goulet, C (2000) Distinguishing kinds of prior dominance and subordination experiences in males of green swordtail fish (Xiphophorus helleri). Behavioural Processes, 50, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bégin, J, Beaugrand, JP & Zayan, R (1996) Selecting dominants and subordinates at conflict outcome can confound the effects of prior dominance and subordination experience. Behavioural Processes, 36, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentley, T, Hull, TT, Hardy, ICW, et al. (2009) The elusive paradox: Owner–intruder roles, strategies and outcomes in parasitoid contests. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bissonnette, A, Lange, E & Schaik, CP (2009) A cardinal measure of competitive ability in Barbary macaque males (Macaca sylvanus). Ethology, 115, 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, BM, Brooks, ME, Clark, CJ, et al. (2008) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R & Silk, JB (1983) A method for assigning cardinal dominance ranks. Animal Behaviour, 31, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Y (1999) When size is not everything: determining the relative importance of two asymmetries influencing contest outcome. Animal Behaviour, 57, F13–F14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briffa, M (2008) Decisions during fights in the house cricket, Acheta domesticus: Mutual or self assessment of energy, weapons and size? Animal Behaviour, 75, 1053–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briffa, M & Elwood, RW (2009) Difficulties remain in distinguishing between mutual and self-assessment in animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 77, 759–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briffa, M & Elwood, RW (2010) Repeated measures analysis of contests and other dyadic interactions: Problems of semantics, not statistical validity. Animal Behaviour, 80, 583–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, ID, Bartolomeo, C & Dugatkin, LA (1994) Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: How long do winners keep winning? Animal Behaviour, 48, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colgan, PW & Smith, TJ (1978) Multidimensional contingency table analysis. In: Colgan, PW (ed.) Quantitative Ethology, pp. 145–174. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cowlishaw, G & Dunbar, RIM (1991) Dominance rank and mating success in male primates. Animal Behaviour, 41, 1045–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ (1993) GLIM for Ecologists. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Crawley, MJ (2002) Statistical Computing: An Introduction to Data Analysis using S-plus. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
David, HA (1987) Ranking from unbalanced paired-comparison data. Biometrika, 74, 432–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, HA (1988) The Method of Paired Comparisons. New York, NY: Hafner.Google Scholar
Davis, CS (2002) Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Measures. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R (1976) Hierarchical organisation. In: Bateson, PPG & Hinde, RA (eds.) Growing Points in Ethology, pp. 7–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dewsbury, DA (1982) Dominance rank, copulatory behaviour, and differential reproduction. Quarterly Review of Biology, 57, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickman, HR (1963) The perception of behavioural units. In: Barker, RG (ed.) The Stream of Behaviour, pp. 23–41. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Ellis, L (1995) Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals: A cross-species comparison. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 257–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elo, AE (1961) The new U.S.C.F. rating system. Chess Life, 16, 160–161.Google Scholar
Elo, AE (1978) The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present. New York, NY: Arco.Google Scholar
Enquist, M & Leimar, O (1983) Evolution of fighting behaviour: Decision rules and assessment of relative strength. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 102, 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enquist, M & Leimar, O (1987) Evolution of fighting behaviour: The effect of variation in resource value. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 127, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enquist, M & Leimar, O (1990) The evolution of fatal fighting. Animal Behaviour, 39, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, SA & Calbert, G (1998) Patch defence in the parasitoid wasp Trissolcus basalis: When to begin fighting? Behaviour, 135, 629–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, SA, Calbert, G & Keller, MA (1998) Patch defence in the parasitoid wasp Trissolcus basalis (Insecta: Scelionidae): The time structure of pairwise contests, and the ‘waiting game’. Ethology, 104, 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fushing, H, McAssey, MP, Beisner, B, et al. (2011) Ranking network of a captive rhesus macaque society: A sophisticated corporative kingdom. PLoS One, 6, e17817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furrer, RD, Kyabulima, S, Willems, EP, et al. (2011) Location and group size influence decisions in simulated intergroup encounters in banded mongooses. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gammell, MP & Hardy, ICW (2003) Contest duration: Sizing up the opposition? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 491–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gammell, MP, Vries, H, Jennings, DJ, et al. (2003) David's score: A more appropriate dominance ranking method than Clutton-Brock et al.'s index. Animal Behaviour, 66, 601–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, JM & Roy, AK (1990) Sequential Analysis: A Guide for Behavioral Researchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goubault, M & Decuignière, M (2012) Prior experience and contest outcome: winner effects persist in absence of evident loser effects in a parasitoid wasp. American Naturalist, 180, 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goubault, M, Batchelor, TP, Linforth, RST, et al. (2006) Volatile emission by contest losers revealed by real-time chemical analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273, 2853–2859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144, 517–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A & Hails, R (2002) Modern Statistics for the Life Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hammerstein, P (1981) The role of asymmetries in animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 29, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hack, MA (1997a) Assessment strategies in the contests of male crickets, Acheta domesticus (L.). Animal Behaviour, 53, 733–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hack, MA (1997b) The energetic costs of fighting in the house cricket, Acheta domesticus L. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, ICW & Field, SA (1998) Logistic analysis of animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 56, 787–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heath, D (1995) An Introduction to Experimental Design and Statistics for Biology. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Hemelrijk, CK, Wantia, J & Gygax, L (2005) The construction of dominance order: Comparing performance of five methods using an individual-based model. Behaviour, 142, 1037–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooff, Jaram (1973) A structural analysis of the social behaviour of a semi-captive group of chimpanzees. In: Von Cranach, M & Vine, I (eds.) Social Communication and Movement, pp. 75–162. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hsu, Y, Earley, RL & Wolf, LL (2006) Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: Mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biological Reviews, 81, 33–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, Y, Lee, IH & Lu, CK (2009) Prior contest information: Mechanisms underlying winner and loser effects. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63, 1247–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, M (1996) The function of concurrent signals: Visual and chemical communication in snapping shrimp. Animal Behaviour, 52, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, M (2000) Deception with honest signals: Signal residuals and signal function in snapping shrimp. Behavioral Ecology, 11, 614–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, EL, Hebblethwaite, AJ, Batchelor, TP, et al. (2006) The importance of valuing resources: Host weight and contender age as determinants of parasitoid wasp contest outcomes. Animal Behaviour, 72, 891–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurlbert, SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs, 54, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innocent, TM, West, SA, Sanderson, JL, et al. (2011) Lethal combat over limited resources: Testing the importance of competitors and kin. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 923–931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jameson, KA, Appleby, MC & Freeman, LC (1999) Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy based on probabilistic dominance. Animal Behaviour, 57, 991–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jennings, DJ, Gammell, MP, Payne, RJH, et al. (2005) An investigation of assessment games during fallow deer fights. Ethology, 111, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, DJ, Carlin, CM, Hayden, TJ, et al. (2011) Third-party intervention behaviour during fallow deer fights: The role of dominance, age, fighting and body size. Animal Behaviour, 81, 1217–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasumovic, MM, Elias, DO, Sivalinghem, S, et al. (2010) Examination of prior contest experience and the retention of winner and loser effects. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, DJ, Alcock, J & Allen, G R (2006) Sequential size assessment and multicomponent decision rules mediate aerial wasp contests. Animal Behaviour, 71, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klass, K & Cords, M (2011) Effect of unknown relationships on linearity, steepness and rank ordering of dominance hierarchies: Simulation studies based on data from wild monkeys. Behavioural Processes, 88, 168–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krackow, S & Tkadlec, E (2001) Analysis of brood sex ratios: Implications of offspring clustering. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langbein, J & Puppe, B (2004) Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods – A plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 87, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leimar, O & Enquist, M (1984) Effects of asymmetries in owner–intruder conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 111, 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, K & Pampoulie, C (2005) Effects of resource holding potential and resource value on tenure at nest sites in sand gobies. Behavioral Ecology, 16, 70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, WB & Chase, ID (2009) Data-based analysis of winner–loser models of hierarchy formation in animals. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 71, 556–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lizé, A, Khidr, SK & Hardy, ICW (2012) Two components of kin recognition influence parasitoid aggression in resource competition. Animal Behaviour, 83, 793–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesterton-Gibbons, M (1994) The Hawk–Dove game revisited: Effects of continuous variation in resource holding potential on the frequency of escalation. Evolutionary Ecology, 8, 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesterton-Gibbons, M, Marden, JH & Dugatkin, LA (1996) On wars of attrition without assessment. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 181, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamad, R, Monge, J-P & Goubault, M (2010) Can subjective resource value affect aggressiveness and contest outcome in parasitoid wasps? Animal Behaviour, 80, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, LJ, Backwell, PRY & Metcalfe, NB (2005) Fighting in fiddler crabs Uca mjoebergi: What determines duration? Animal Behaviour, 70, 653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundry, R & Nunn, CL (200) Stepwise model fitting and statistical inference: Turning noise into signal pollution. American Naturalist, 173, 119–123.CrossRef
Nakagawa, S & Cuthill, IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews, 82, 591–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neat, FC, Taylor, AC & Huntingford, FA (1998) Proximate costs of fighting in male cichlid fish: The role of injuries and energy metabolism. Animal Behaviour, 55, 875–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, C, Duboscq, J, Dubuc, C, et al. (2011) Assessing dominance hierarchies: Validation and advantages of progressive evaluation with Elo-rating. Animal Behaviour, 82, 911–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newtson, D (1973) Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Hara, RB & Kotze, DJ (2010) Do not log transform count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paoli, T, Palagi, E & Tarli, SMB (2006) Reevaluation of dominance hierarchy in bonobos (Pan paniscus). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 130, 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, RJH (1998) Gradually escalating fights and displays: The cumulative assessment model. Animal Behaviour, 56, 651–662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peixoto, PEC & Benson, WW (2008) Body mass and not wing length predicts territorial success in a tropical Satyrine butterfly. Ethology, 114, 1069–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, G & Hardy, ICW (1996) The importance of being larger: Parasitoid intruder–owner contests and their implications for clutch size. Animal Behaviour, 51, 1363–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poisbleau, M, Jenouvrier, S & Fritz, H (2006) Assessing the reliability of dominance scores for assigning individual ranks in a hierarchy. Animal Behaviour, 72, 835–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, JH (1982) Musth and male–male competition in the African elephant. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
Poole, JH (1989) Announcing intent: The aggressive status of musth in African elephants. Animal Behaviour, 37, 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, GP & Keough, MJ (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohwer, S & Rohwer, FC (1978) Status signalling in Harris sparrows: Experimental deceptions achieved. Animal Behaviour, 26, 1012–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royle, NJ, Lindström, J & Metcalfe, NB (2005) A poor start in life negatively affects dominance status in adulthood independent of body size in green swordtails Xiphophorus helleri. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 1917–1922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudin, FS & Briffa, M (2011) The logical polyp: Assessments and decisions during contests in the beadlet anemone Actinia equina. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 1278–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanvito, S, Galimberti, F & Miller, EH (2007) Vocal signalling of male southern elephant seals is honest but imprecise. Animal Behaviour, 73, 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapolsky, RM (2005) The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 308, 648–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schjelderup-Ebbe, T (1922) Beiträge zur sozialpsychologie des haushuhns. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 88, 226–252.Google Scholar
Sharpe, T & Koperwas, J (2003) Behavior and Sequential Analysis: Principles and Practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shizuka, D & McDonald, DB (2012) A social network perspective on measurements of dominance hierarchies. Animal Behaviour, 83, 925–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, DR, Hardy, ICW & Gammell, MP (2011) Power rangers: No improvement in the statistical power of analyses published in Animal Behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 81, 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, LU, Huntingford, FA & Taylor, AC (1997) Weapon size versus body size as a predictor of winning in fights between shore crabs, Carcinus maenas (L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 41, 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, LU, Taylor, AC, Huntingford, FA, et al. (2000) Agonistic behaviour and biogenic amines in shore crabs Carcinus maenas. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203, 537–545.Google ScholarPubMed
Sokal, RR & Rohlf, FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. New York, NY: WH Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Taborsky, M (2010) Sample size in the study of behaviour. Ethology, 116, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, PW & Elwood, RW (2003) The mismeasure of animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 65, 1195–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, H (1995) An improved test of linearity in dominance hierarchies containing unknown or tied relationships. Animal Behaviour, 50, 1375–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, H (1998) Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: A new procedure and review. Animal Behaviour, 55, 827–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vries, H (2009) On using the DomWorld model to evaluate dominance ranking methods. Behaviour, 146, 843–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, H & Appleby, MC (2000) Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy: A comparison of the I&SI and the BBS methods. Animal Behaviour, 59, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vries, H, Stevens, JMG & Vervaecke, H (2006) Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies. Animal Behaviour, 71, 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warton, DI & Hui, FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: The analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology, 92, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, H (2008) Analyzing Animal Societies: Quantitative Methods for Vertebrate Social Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H (2009) SOCPROG programs: Analyzing animal social structures. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63, 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, AJ, Boer, M, Arnott, G, et al. (2011). Integrating personality research and animal contest theory: Aggressiveness in the green swordtail Xiphophorus helleri. PLoS ONE, 6, e28024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, K & Hardy, ICW (2002) Statistical analysis of sex ratios: An introduction. In: Hardy, ICW (ed.) Sex Ratios: Concepts and Research Methods, Pp. 48–92 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittemyer, G & Getz, WM (2006) A likely ranking interpolation for resolving dominance orders in systems with unknown relationships. Behaviour, 143, 909–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahavi, A (1975) Mate selection – A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×